Front Page  »  

Time to clean house in Paso Robles

September 5, 2010

Opinion By JIM REED

I’d like to give you an update on the issue of our civil servants cramming hundreds of millions of dollars in spending down our throats after the people of Paso Robles voted down the water rate increase last November. The rate increase is being hung up in the courts by the City Attorney. What was supposed to be a quick issue to get in front of a judge, has been drug out as long as possible by the City Attorney.

Even if the courts throw out the current rate increase, I expect that our civil servants will just change a couple of words in the rate increase notice and force the same old plan on us again.

There is a real problem with the people we have hired to work for us in Paso Robles. It seems that decisions are made based on some agenda, even if it is contrary to citizens’ wishes.

City Councilmen Ed Steinbeck, Nick Gilman and Mayor Duane Picanco, on August 19th, voted unanimously to hire the same law firm employed by the City of Bell. You may have heard the recent news story about the City of Bell’s corrupt city representatives.

This law firm allowed the elected officials and City employees to pillage the General Fund for their own benefit, contrary to the rights and interests of the citizens. We are already paying several City employees $12,000 per month with equally ridiculous benefits and pensions. What does this say about our elected representatives?

I believe most residents are like me. We elect people we believe have our best interest in mind. Over the last few years I have seen that nothing is farther from the truth. The people we have elected have lost track of the fact that “the City” exists to protect and deliver services to the citizens. To them it is some all-important ideal they strive to cultivate and improve according to their agenda. They have forgotten that they are elected to represent the citizens.

We have an election coming up in November. We have the opportunity to elect some responsible, principled people to represent us. If we elect more people from within this system, we will get more of the same type of government. We need to look at where the new candidates stand. Will they lawfully represent the citizens of the city? Or, are they happy with the way things are being run?

We have stood together in the past and have made real significant changes in important matters that are going to affect our lives for years to come. There are several thousand citizens that made their voice heard on the water issue, more than enough votes to make a change in our city government.

Please come out and vote for a democratic representative governing body for Paso Robles instead of the tyrannical leadership that exists now.

Jim Reed is a longtime resident of Paso Robles.


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


30 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

pasoobserver – As I clearly stated in my answer to pasojim: pasojim – I agree the Court has to decide if Paso Robles did, or did not follow the correct procedure for funding the Nacimiento and sewage plant upgrade. Having said that, do you have any reason to believe that Paso Robles does not have to pay for its share of the Nacimiento Pipeline or needs to replace the 55 year old sewage plant?


As to your idea that new development should pay for all the new infrastructure. I will break it into sewage plant verses Nacimiento pipeline. For the sewage plant. Paso Robles is currently violating the solid matter discharge levels into the Salinas River. As you might imagine a plant built 55 years ago was not designed for the population or the strict discharge requirements of today. There have already been fines and if the City does not work diligently towards a solution there will be much bigger fines that the taxpayers will have to pay. The existing sewage plant is 55 years old. If not one more house is built the plant still needs replacing. How are you going to pay for it pasoobserver? What say you?


The Nacimiento Water Pipeline is a little more complicated. Unfortunately, your ideal scenario of requiring new infrastructure to be paid for 100% by new development is against California law. Has been for a very long time. The reason being is that Cities would use this as a reason to not allow any growth. With 38 million living in California, unfortunately growth has to be allowed. The estimate is the State has to have new housing units in the number equivalent of two more Los Angeles in the next twenty-five years. To prevent cites from not allowing building CA has laws.


The most obvious is that all cities and counties in California have to zone for a certain amount of housing units across the cost spectrum. This includes Beverly Hills and Barstow. They can not directly force a developer to build a certain price housing unit so indirect measures are used. Things like we will let you build 10 units on this land, but if you build 4 low cost units you can build 18 units on this land.


The less obvious is that if new development had to pay for 100% of the new infrastructure cost this would prevent most new development, something CA can’t have. Take the Nacimiento Water pipeline as an example. If Paso Robles allowed no more building in Paso Robles the extra water the pipeline will bring is not needed (forgetting about blending the soft pipeline water with the hard well water to lower the mineral discharge into the Salinas River). Therefore, since the pipeline is not really needed by the existing citizens of Paso Robles, you argue the Pipeline should be paid for 100% by the new development. Chandler Ranch and the other two big east side developments will probably be around 2400 homes. Can you imagine the cost per home if the 2400 homes had to pay 100% of the Pipeline cost, the accompanying water treatment plant and the new sewer plant.. No new development would ever be built in California if it worked your ideal way. So California has laws.


You may never have a child in a public school, but you still pay taxes to fund public schools in CA, in theory, for the public good. The State has taken the same tact on infrastructure development. The cost of a City’s newly required infrastructure is spread among the entire city for the good of all of California. Using a formula the new development does pay more, but everybody has to pay some.


These two laws, a city in California must provide for growth, which includes a lack of infrastructure is not a legal excuse to not meet the California minimum growth requirements; and a City in California can not require 100% of new infrastructure costs to be borne by only new development, makes the problem in Paso Robles what it is.


This exact same problem is fought over in City Council chambers all over California. The fight is idealism verses the CA law. This is why in the areas zoned for development in California, development has never been stopped. These laws force the development to be allowed. If a City is out of buildable land, then it has to allow building to go vertical. The City of Los Angeles is facing this issue right now.


The problem for Paso Robles is that at the same time they need the Nacimiento Water Pipeline (and accompanying water treatment plant) and the new sewage plant. These all have to be paid for. There is no question about whether these have to be paid for, but the question is how these should be paid for? The City’s idea, as I understand it, was to have users pay based on how much they use. If you use more water, you pay more.


pasoobserver, as I asked pasojim, how would you propose to pay for these infrastructure improvements?


0

TO WHATISUP — DO YOU REALIZE THAT THE CITIZENS OF PASO ROBLES WERE DENIED THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE ON THE NACIMIENTO WATER PIPELINE PROJECT. THE FINANCING BONDS WERE EXPEDITED BY THE CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL ON A HUGE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF $176 MILLION. ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY MORE FOR LESS WATER? ARE YOU AWARE THAT A TREATMENT PLANT NEEDS TO BE BUILT BEFORE ANY LAKE WATER CAN FLOW TO PASO WATER CUSTOMERS? ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY FOR A COMMODITY THAT YOU ARE NOT RECEIVING? THE LOGICAL ANSWER IS “NO”. WHY SHOULD PASO HOMEOWNERS PAY MORE FOR WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE. LET NEW DEVELOPMENT PAY 100% OF THEIR SHARE. IT IS MY OPINION, THE ADDITIONAL 4,000 ACRE FEET OF H2O IS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT. I ASK YOU, ARE YOU WILLING TO SUBSIDIZE NEW DEVELOPMENT? I DO NOT WANT TOO. ALSO, IF THERE WAS A SHORTAGE OF H2O, WHY IS THE CITY COUNCIL ALLOWING A LOT MORE HOMES TO BE BUILT? IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE IF THERE IS A H2O SHORTAGE. THE CURRENT FINANCING BONDS FOR THE NACIMIENTO WATER PIPELINE PROJECT CAN BE RECALLED EARLY. THEN, THE CITY COUNCIL CAN EXPLAIN IN DETAIL TO THE CITIZENS OF PASO IN WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND HOW MUCH IT WILL COST. THEN LET THE CITIZENS OF PASO DECIDE BY THEIR VOTE. THIS PROCEDURE WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE PROPOSITION 218 WHICH WAS PASSED IN 1996. THIS CURRENT CITY COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE GOOD EXAMPLE OF OUR CITY COUNCIL BACK IN 1998 ( MEASURE D-98). THE CITIZENS GOT TO VOTE ON APPROX. $33 MILLION FINANCING BOND AND WAS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS. WHAT SAY YOU?


0

“There is a real problem with the people we have hired to work for us in Paso Robles. It seems that decisions are made based on some agenda, even if it is contrary to citizens’ wishes.”


You are absolutely right. Paso people want the streets and roads repaired. We want the roads restriped. We want intersections without tricks and hidden hazards. We want truck routes established so that semis are not traveling neighborhood streets. We want code enforcement (no. of people per household); safe and off the street bike paths for our kids to ride to school (not tourist events).


Unfortunately, all of the people running for mayor are in the same group of good ole boys, and the ones that don’t win, will simply be appointed to the council when there is a vacancy.


0

pasojim – I agree the Court has to decide if Paso Robles did, or did not follow the correct procedure for funding the Nacimiento and sewage plant upgrade. Having said that to you have any reason to believe that Paso Robles does not have to pay for its share of the Nacimiento Pipeline or needs to replace the 55 year old sewage plant?


You did fail to mention over what period of time the $300 million was for, and the other entire infrastructure the $300 million was to pay for that the $70 million doesn’t include. You and your friends can not have it both ways. You go on and on about all the infrastructure Paso Robles needs to build and upgrade. Yet, you don’t want to pay for it. So your strategy is to delay, delay, delay; and then when it finally gets built you complain it could have been built five, ten or twenty years earlier for a fraction of the cost.


Also, it is not the City’s fault that the Regional Water Quality Control Board is threatening to fine Paso Robles $10,000 a day if it doesn’t bring the TDS (total dissolved solids including mineral discharge) from the sewage plant into its very strict compliance. Much of these infrastructure costs including the Nacimiento Water Pipeline, are related to meeting the RWQCB mandates. The City’s well water is very hard and by mixing in the Nacimiento Pipeline water, which is soft, helps the mineral discharge coming out of the sewage plant to meet the Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines.


The Water Board is not going to wait for the citizens of Paso Robles to argue about how to clean up the mineral content in the sewage discharge going into the Salinas River for the next twenty years. Paso Robles has to pay for the Nacimiento Water Pipeline and a replacement for the 55 year old sewage plant. What would you have the City do, pay the $3,650,000 a year fine, and then still have to pay for the infrastructure eventually — at even higher costs?


Remember, in Los Osos, this same Regional Water Quality Control Board started randomly going after individual citizens for using a septic tank because Los Osos hadn’t built the sewer system and had no approved plans to build the sewer system. The randomly targeted citizens, not the government, had to pay to hire an attorney to fight the Regional Water Quality Control Board. I am sure the RWQCB noticed, after 30 years of no action in Los Osos, how quickly the Los Osos Sewer Plant moved forward after they started going after individual citizens (something I did not know they could do until they did it).


0

Whatisup – The debate about the Naciemento water project has never been about paying for it. As I mentioned before water customers started paying for it several years ago. It has always been about how we are going to pay for it. There isn’t any good reason to let the city council or staff make decisions of this magnitude for us. The citizens that have to pay for the plan have many different ideas on the best way for this project to be PAID for.

I emphasized the word PAID so you can’t construe that any where in that last paragraph does it say we shouldn’t pay for it. There are no hidden messages in the paragraph.

The water treatment plant is not a new subject. Previous city councils actually starting saving money for that job a long time ago (WOW, responsible city council, what a concept) but of course subsequent city councils decided to spend the money on their other agendas.

I didn’t fail to mention anything about the costs, In your previous comments, you were the one that stated erroneous numbers. Are you trying cloud the issue of what the real costs of this project will be?

In either one of my earlier comments, I never mentioned anything about infrastructure. You brought that up. When we pay our water bills, we not only pay for the water we use, we also pay into a depreciation account that is to be used to take care of infrastructure issues before they become major issues. I can hear you now, “there wasn’t enough money to properly maintain the system”. Are you saying our water department employees haven’t been doing their job maintaining our water system all these years or have the city council been using that money for their other agendas as well? I feel that if the city council were doing their job, infrastructure wouldn’t be an issue (but that is only my opinion).

I never once said it was the city’s fault that the regional water quality control board is threatening to fine Paso Robles $10,000 a day because of the antiquated sewer treatment plan. As I stated earlier this is not a new issue. The point I was trying to make is there is the cost of 41 million dollars. Will the people that have to pay for it be involved in how it will be paid for? or will council and staff keep the people that actually have to pay for it out of the decision again.

Your idea that water customers of the city of Paso Robles want the city to run out of water or want the water system to fail is not valid. Again the issue here is the people that actually have to pay for the improvements get to vote on the plan.

I keep hearing that what is happening here in Paso is comparable to what happened in Los Osos. The whole problem there is with a handful of arrogant city custodians that wouldn’t involve the citizens in decision on how to deal with the problem (they know better). It does look vaguely familiar. If you think that imposing fines on the citizens because of irresponsible actions of the council is the proper way to solve problems, I don’t think this debate needs to continue.

This discussion didn’t start with the water issue. The original discussion was about electing responsible, principled people in the election coming up. The water issue is just a small tip of a much bigger iceberg of problems we will need to face in the near future. I for one would like to face these future issues with some different people.


0

pasojim – What is your idea of how to pay for the Nacimiento Pipeline. I never here an alternative payment plan from those who don’t like City proposed plan. The City plan was the people who use the water pay for the pipeline. The more water you use the more you pay. If you aren’t paying based on the water you use then somebody else is paying your share. I have racked my brain for an alternative way to fairly pay for the pipeline. Do you have an alternative plan since you don’t like the City’s plan and if you do, please tell me what it is?


0

whatisup – You keep making the point of my original post about the water issue. To me this is only one issue of many that should be being addressed. But if I must.


It seems an exercise in futility to discuss the merits of an illegally devised plan that keeps getting forced on us by our city custodians. Several times over the years of this discussion, there have been several individuals suggesting Responsibile and LEGAL alternatives to the city’s plan, but didn’t fit into the city’s agenda enough to be used. It doesn’t matter what we think, they are only going to use their ideas. So the only part of the decision making process the citizens have at this time is at the ballot box.


I have an Idea. How about you come up with a legal plan. Read the rules about what can be charged for on the water bills and actually read the state constitution pertaining to the law that actually provides outlines for city custodians to use when planning for major infrastructure improvements (the state constitution actually had to be amended recently because of abuse by elected city representatives across the state). Come up with a plan that doesn’t have to hide behind a legal firm with questionable credentials. A plan that will admittedly be scrutinized by a lot of people with different ideas. If you can get your hero’s in the city to put your plan on the ballot, I will walk with you to the ballot booth and cast my vote with you, and will respectfully abide by the outcome of the results.


0

pasojim – exactly what responsible and legal alternatives have been offered. I am not aware of a single one and every time I ask for details all I ever get are questions. If you know of one, what are the details? Does anybody have any details?


You are arguing about whether the City followed the proper funding procedure, a fair argument, but this doesn’t relieve the requirement to fund the projects. If the City loses the lawsuit, the projects still have to be funded.


As I see it, if the Court rules the City violated the infrastructure funding laws the costs will be paid out of the City’s general fund until the Citizens of Paso Robles vote in a legal payment scheme. This will mean draconian cuts to a City budget that has already been drastically cut in the last few years because of the State Budget. If you think people are complaining about reduced city services now, just wait – it will be bad. It is possible these cuts will have to be made before the citizens of Paso Robles decide to pony up.


I do believe if you use more water than you should pay for more of the cost. It does seem fairer than anything else I can think of. pasojim, do you have a fairer way to fund these projects?


0

Here’s the bottom line, your refering to the politicians as civil servants and rightly so they are. Unfortunatly theres so many examples of unethical practices in this county its staggering. Let me offer you a perfect example. Take the Wallace Group who is owned by John Wallace. Mr. Wallace has served as District Administrator for numerous public agencies in this county,including The OCSD, The San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District , Avila community CSD etc,etc. Fact, Mr Wallace has for decades in some cases managed to find a means to allow his personal company, The Wallace Group, to provide unchallenged, non open government bid engineering,construction managment, pre treatment, sewer managment and other services to be performed by his own staff to the tune of close to a million dollars per year in some cases. This is a fact, not some number pulled out of a hat. If this isnt a conflict of interest what the hell is I ask? Facts and data have been presented to these politicians acting in the tax payers so called best interest ,yet they continue to do as the please.

Recently the Sanitation District was investigated by the EPA and RWQCB and has been served a Notice of Violation by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for some half dozen + offences. Some of which are related to failure to maintain anything close to a meaningful operations and maintence manual. Interesting enough after some 25 years on the job as Administrator and after repeated requests by the Districts staff for these documents, Wallace has failed to provide these yet still has claimed to be proactive in all areas. Now oddly enough the Wallace Group now under the gun by the regional Board has taken on the chore of creating or updating these documents which which should have been there from day one, and will no doubt charge the tax payers literally tens of thousands of dollars to provide their services. Its time to clean house people, tell these so called public servants to pack their bags, Blago is in need of a support crew and has some positions avaliable.


0

I’m voting for new leadership in Paso. I’m voting for Mike Gibson for mayor.


0

I am also voting for new leadership in Paso. A civic minded person who has the best interests of the people of Paso Robles in mind. An everyday hard working giver to the community. Definitely not Mike Gibson who is nothing more than a mouth piece for the affluent society of Paso Robles. Totally out of touch with the working class citizens. Gary Nemeth is the man who should be mayor.


0

I think Mike will be a voice for the small business people. I think city hall needs that. Right now, it seems like government at every level is making it more difficult to be a small business person and create more jobs. Mike’s focus is on the local economy and that will benefit everyone.


0

northcounty resident – How has the Paso Robles Planning Commission, City Council, or City Hall ever not fully supported small businesses. Paso Robles has got to be the most business friendly city in SLO County. I understand Mike Gibson wanting to be Mayor, but if his platform is he will ride in on a white horse to be the savior to the small business owners oppressed by City Government in Paso Robles he needs a reality check.


0

Blue collar tradesmen are among the most unemployed in North County right now. I personally know two builders, and I’m sure there are more, who are willing to invest their money right now, pay the absurd city fees, meet the absurd design committee’s subjective demands, take the risks of the volatile real estate market and put family men back to work. The hold up is at city hall. I could give you dozens of ways the city hurts its small businesses and hurts local employment, but this is the most infuriating.


0

Me thinks the author of this “opinion post” is using some sketchy connections and comparisons to make a political point. If he means, by cutting bureaucratic overhead to save the voters their own tax monies, then bravo. But, if he is just trying to blame a particular group, then he way off base. This problem is atumor on every county in the state and it needs to be corrected by cutting the fat, starting at the top…

I would tend to agree with whatisup, how is the naci water project going to be paid for? The county had it’s chance back when the lake was first designed and built to participate and including infrastructure for arterial supply. But much like the screaming and shouting over the Los Osos sewer project, nothing was done when it was cheap and affordable. Now the county is still looking for other communities to pawn off this very expensive water project on and IMHO it will be all of us…


0

I think one of the key issues here and with most government agencies are the “benefits” that everyone just seems to accept.

It would really be quality reporting if the CalCoast news, The Tribune (good luck) and the TV stations did an in depth research of these benefits that city managers have given themselves and their department heads. The outcome would be a wake up call to everyone what some (Atascadero) and some are not giving.

Remember it’s YOUR tax money, not theirs.


0

Under the current Paso Robles City Council 25% of the city jobs have been eliminated, salaries have been frozen and the City budget has been cut a total of $26 million over the next three years. As far as cramming hundreds of millions of dollars of spending down the throats of the citizens of Paso Robles, that is multiple times the entire city budget. Perhaps the author meant tens of millions?


You can find the budget on the City of Paso Robles Website. Exactly what do you propose cutting other than the City Manager’s and Department heads’ salaries?


The Tribune story last week indicated the average City Manager’s salary for the Cities in SLO County is $218,000 plus benefits, but the Paso Robles City Manager’s salary was $155,000 plus benefits. It may be this salary is still high, I think so, but one can hardly claim the current City Council gave away the farm. San Luis Obispo is paying their City Manager $318,000 plus benefits.


As far as the Legal Firm Issue, that story was already covered thoroughly by CAL Coast News a few weeks ago. I just looked; the comment thread of that story has 44 comments expressing a wide range of views. The person who made the big stink was John Borst who heads up the citizens group suing Paso Robles over the Nacimiento Water Pipeline. Of course his group would like to see the current City Attorney fired to remove her as the opposition to their lawsuit.


The question is Mr. Reed: How do you propose paying for the Nacimiento Water Pipeline if not by raising the water rates? You didn’t mention what your idea was on how to pay for the pipeline.


0

No, the author meant hundreds of millions of dollars. The total cost of the first rate increase plan was nearly $300 million. When the citizens objected, the city managed to cut approximately $70 million from the plan. The cuts that were made were in financing charges and items not necessary to deliver water. The cost of the current plan is nearly a quarter of a billion dollars.


The argument is not about water. To me, the issue has always been about the soviet style of government that keeps getting forced on us. The idea that these temporary custodians we elect and these unelected employees can force $230 Million of spending on us without a vote has always been the problem. Had our city government used the proper representative style of government and allowed the people a vote, this issue would probably be settled by now.


There is a system that has been used on other major project in the past, such as Niblick Bridge or school improvements. Our representative don’t like this process because there ends up to be a certain amount of compromising that has to be done. But, the bottom line is that the projects do get done. This is what we have asked the current and previous City Council’s to do. They refuse. If our representatives were representing us, we would have had a vote.


If you look back at your water bills you will see that we started paying for the Nacimiento Fee in 2005. Originally, the pipeline was going to cost water customers $36 per month. Since then, the cost has ballooned into this $230 Million in hard costs, PLUS several million dollars per year in operating costs. The amount of water we are getting from the pipeline, by the city’s projections will only cover new development for about 10 years. After that, we are going to need more water. Where are we going to get that water? And how much will that plan cost? And, while we are contemplating these issues, we need another $41 million for upgrades to our sewer treatment plant.


The City’s custodians decided the City should pay for a special election, hire a public relations firm …, by the City’s own admission, wasted $2 Million of City funds fighting over the water issue. That $2 Million probably wouldn’t go far dealing with the water issue, but could have been used for other important city issues such as keeping the Municipal Pool open, or fixing the potholes in our streets, etc.


When I look at the mess that has been made with this one issue and see some of these other issues alluded to In my original post, I see these are just the tip of a much bigger iceberg of misguided representation in our government.


All that has been asked of them is to allow the citizens a vote. After years of refusing this one basic right us citizens are supposed to have, it is obvious to me we need some new representatives.


0

As usual for those opposed to the idea of the water project, the idea is to delay, delay, and when that doesn’t work, delay some more. For years those against this project have been asked a simple question – how do you propose we pay for water? And still, we wait for an answer, any answer, that addresses that question.


Jim, how about putting your money where your mouth is – or would you prefer to just attack me and say that all you want is a vote? How about you put up your proposal and then we can put them both on a ballot and let the people decide?


As to the law firm the city has hired – if you wanted to speak to fact then you would mention these key points: First, the law firm that our City Attorney worked for disolved this year, after many years of operations. Second, our current Attorney took a job with a massive law firm that represents clients all over the world, and that also happened to be the firm that represented the City of Bell. Third, that was not thier only client, but one of thousands. Is everyone you ever associated in your life a perfect person? Even those from your days in grade school? Does that make you responsible for thier actions?


Bottom line, stop the sensationalist arguements and put out an idea – any idea about how our city should pay for water that is realistic. Then let’s put it to a vote – your groups idea versus the city plan. Winner takes all. But first, your group has to have an idea that isn’t just opposition.


0

pasorobles_1 Your comments are old and tired. People have been offering proposals on the the water plan for years, only to ignored.


I you want to know where I stand read the 9/10 post to whatisup


0

pasojim – Not meaning to be disrespectful or anything, but I can’t find a post on this piece from you dated 9/10. Which post are you refering to?


I have read your piece and every response you have posted, and I still don’t see your answer to my question: What is your legal idea of how to pay for water? Remember, every citizen must pay an equal share, new development can not legally be required to pay for improvements.


I did see the idea of desal – estimates that I have seen for other cities are running $500M and up. (Remember there is a lot of maintenance of pipelines and, from this distance, a lot of pumps to get it here.) How much do you really want to pay if desal is your answer? By the way – ever tasted the water from a desal plant? You might as well drink out of your lead lined garden hose – nasty.


0
1 2